0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
50 tayangan11 halaman
1. The University of the Philippines (UP) appealed a trial court decision ordering it to pay a contractor for an unpaid billing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.
2. The trial court then issued a writ of execution, garnishing public funds belonging to UP. UP challenged this but its motions were denied.
3. UP filed various petitions challenging the garnishment of funds but these were denied, with the appellate courts finding the trial court order had become final and executory when UP failed to timely appeal.
1. The University of the Philippines (UP) appealed a trial court decision ordering it to pay a contractor for an unpaid billing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.
2. The trial court then issued a writ of execution, garnishing public funds belonging to UP. UP challenged this but its motions were denied.
3. UP filed various petitions challenging the garnishment of funds but these were denied, with the appellate courts finding the trial court order had become final and executory when UP failed to timely appeal.
1. The University of the Philippines (UP) appealed a trial court decision ordering it to pay a contractor for an unpaid billing. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.
2. The trial court then issued a writ of execution, garnishing public funds belonging to UP. UP challenged this but its motions were denied.
3. UP filed various petitions challenging the garnishment of funds but these were denied, with the appellate courts finding the trial court order had become final and executory when UP failed to timely appeal.
FIRST DIVISION ordering the latter to pay plaintiff, jointly and severally, the
[G.R. NO. 171182 - August 23, 2012] following, to
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, JOSE V. ABUEVA, RAUL P. wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ DE GUZMAN, RUBEN P. ASPIRAS, EMMANUEL P. BELLO, 1. P503,462.74 amount of the third billing, additional WILFREDO P. DAVID, CASIANO S. ABRIGO, and JOSEFINA R. accomplished work and retention money LICUANAN, Petitioners, v. HON. AGUSTIN S. DIZON, his 2. P5,716,729.00 in actual damages capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of 3. P10,000,000.00 in moral damages Quezon City, Branch 80, STERN BUILDERS, INC., and 4. P150,000.00 and P1,500.00 per appearance as attorney s SERVILLANO DELA CRUZ, Respondents. fees; andcralawlibrary DECISION 5. Costs of suit. BERSAMIN, J.: SO ORDERED. Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or chanrobles virtual law library garnishment against the Government or any of its Following the RTC s denial of its motion for reconsideration on subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities to enforce money May 7, 2002,6 the UP filed a notice of appeal on June 3, judgments.1 They should bear in mind that the primary 2002.7 Stern Builders and dela Cruz opposed the notice of jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle all claims of any sort appeal on the ground of its filing being belated, and moved for due from the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies the execution of the decision. The UP countered that the and instrumentalities pertains to the Commission on Audit notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government because the UP s Office of Legal Affairs (OLS) in Diliman, Auditing Code of the Philippines). Quezon City received the order of denial only on May 31, 2002. The Case On September 26, 2002, the RTC denied due course to the On appeal by the University of the Philippines and its then notice of appeal for having been filed out of time and granted incumbent officials (collectively, the UP) is the decision the private respondents motion for execution.8ςrνll promulgated on September 16, 2005, 2 whereby the Court of The RTC issued the writ of execution on October 4, 2002,9 and Appeals (CA) upheld the order of the Regional Trial Court the sheriff of the RTC served the writ of execution and notice (RTC), Branch 80, in Quezon City that directed the garnishment of demand upon the UP, through its counsel, on October 9, of public funds amounting to P16,370,191.74 belonging to the 2002.10 The UP filed an urgent motion to reconsider the order UP to satisfy the writ of execution issued to enforce the already dated September 26, 2002, to quash the writ of execution final and executory judgment against the UP. dated October 4, 2002, and to restrain the Antecedents proceedings.11 However, the RTC denied the urgent motion on On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. April 1, 2003.12ςrνll Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with On June 24, 2003, the UP assailed the denial of due course to respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), its appeal through a Petition for Certiorariin the Court of represented by its President and General Manager Servillano Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. No. 77395.13ςrνll dela Cruz, for the construction of the extension building and On February 24, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in for certiorari upon finding that the UP s notice of appeal had the campus of the University of the Philippines in Los Baños been filed (UPLB).3ςrνll late,14 stating:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ In the course of the implementation of the contract, Stern Records clearly show that petitioners received a copy of the Builders submitted three progress billings corresponding to Decision dated November 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002, thus, the work accomplished, but the UP paid only two of the they had until January 22, 2002 within which to file their billings. The third billing worth P273,729.47 was not paid due appeal. On January 16, 2002 or after the lapse of nine (9) days, to its disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA). Despite petitioners through their counsel Atty. Nolasco filed a Motion the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, for Reconsideration of the aforesaid decision, hence, pursuant prompting Stern Builders and dela Cruz to sue the UP and its to the rules, petitioners still had six (6) remaining days to file co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to their appeal. As admitted by the petitioners in their petition recover various damages. The suit, entitled Stern Builders (Rollo, p. 25), Atty. Nolasco received a copy of the Order Corporation and Servillano R. Dela Cruz v. University of the denying their motion for reconsideration on May 17, 2002, Philippines Systems, Jose V. Abueva, Raul P. de Guzman, Ruben thus, petitioners still has until May 23, 2002 (the remaining six P. Aspiras, Emmanuel P. Bello, Wilfredo P. David, Casiano S. (6) days) within which to file their appeal. Obviously, Abrigo, and Josefina R. Licuanan, was docketed as Civil Case petitioners were not able to file their Notice of Appeal on May No. Q-93-14971 of the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City 23, 2002 as it was only filed on June 3, 2002. (RTC).4ςrνll In view of the said circumstances, We are of the belief and so After trial, on November 28, 2001, the RTC rendered its holds that the Notice of Appeal filed by the petitioners was decision in favor of the really filed out of time, the same having been filed seventeen plaintiffs,5 viz:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ (17) days late of the reglementary period. By reason of which, Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby the decision dated November 28, 2001 had already become rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants final and executory. "Settled is the rule that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by On December 21, 2004, the RTC, through respondent Judge law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to Agustin S. Dizon, authorized the release of the garnished funds perfect that appeal renders the challenged judgment final and of the UP,32 to executory. This is not an empty procedural rule but is wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no more legal sound practice." (Ram s Studio and Photographic Equipment, impediment for the release of the garnished amount in Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 346 SCRA 691, 696). Indeed, Atty. satisfaction of the judgment award in the instant case, let the Nolasco received the order of denial of the Motion for amount garnished be immediately released by the Reconsideration on May 17, 2002 but filed a Notice of Appeal Development Bank of the Philippines, Commonwealth Branch, only on June 3, 3003. As such, the decision of the lower Quezon City in favor of the court ipso facto became final when no appeal was perfected plaintiff.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ after the lapse of the reglementary period. This procedural SO ORDERED. caveat cannot be trifled with, not even by the High chanrobles virtual law library Court.15ςrνll The UP was served on January 3, 2005 with the order of chanrobles virtual law library December 21, 2004 directing DBP to release the garnished The UP sought a reconsideration, but the CA denied the UP s funds.33ςrνll motion for reconsideration on April 19, 2004. 16ςrνll On January 6, 2005, Stern Builders and dela Cruz moved to cite On May 11, 2004, the UP appealed to the Court by Petition for DBP in direct contempt of court for its non-compliance with Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 163501). the order of release.34ςrνll On June 23, 2004, the Court denied the Petition for Review Thereupon, on January 10, 2005, the UP brought a Petition .17 The UP moved for the reconsideration of the denial of its for Certiorari in the CA to challenge the jurisdiction of the RTC Petition for Review on August 29, 2004,18 but the Court denied in issuing the order of December 21, 2004 (CA-G.R. CV No. the motion on October 6, 2004.19 The denial became final and 88125).35 Aside from raising the denial of due process, the UP executory on November 12, 2004.20ςrνll averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion In the meanwhile that the UP was exhausting the available amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there remedies to overturn the denial of due course to the appeal was no longer any legal impediment to the release of the and the issuance of the writ of execution, Stern Builders and garnished funds. The UP argued that government funds and dela Cruz filed in the RTC their motions for execution despite properties could not be seized by virtue of writs of execution their previous motion having already been granted and despite or garnishment, as held in Department of Agriculture v. the writ of execution having already issued. On June 11, 2003, National Labor Relations Commission,36 and citing Section 84 the RTC granted another motion for execution filed on May 9, of Presidential Decree No. 1445 to the effect that "revenue 2003 (although the RTC had already issued the writ of funds shall not be paid out of any public treasury or depository execution on October 4, 2002).21ςrνll except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific On June 23, 2003 and July 25, 2003, respectively, the sheriff statutory authority;" and that the order of garnishment served notices of garnishment on the UP s depository banks, clashed with the ruling in University of the Philippines Board of namely: Land Bank of the Philippines (Buendia Branch) and the Regents v. Ligot-Telan37 to the effect that the funds belonging Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Commonwealth to the UP were public funds. Branch.22 The UP assailed the garnishment through an urgent On January 19, 2005, the CA issued a temporary restraining motion to quash the notices of garnishment;23 and a motion to order (TRO) upon application by the UP.38ςrνll quash the writ of execution dated May 9, 2003.24ςrνll On March 22, 2005, Stern Builders and dela Cruz filed in the On their part, Stern Builders and dela Cruz filed their ex parte RTC their amended motion for sheriff s assistance to motion for issuance of a release order. 25ςrνll implement the release order dated December 21, 2004, On October 14, 2003, the RTC denied the UP s urgent motion stating that the 60-day period of the TRO of the CA had already to quash, and granted Stern Builders and dela Cruz s ex lapsed.39 The UP opposed the amended motion and countered parte motion for issuance of a release order. 26ςrνll that the implementation of the release order be The UP moved for the reconsideration of the order of October suspended.40ςrνll 14, 2003, but the RTC denied the motion on November 7, On May 3, 2005, the RTC granted the amended motion for 2003.27ςrνll sheriff s assistance and directed the sheriff to proceed to the On January 12, 2004, Stern Builders and dela Cruz again sought DBP to receive the check in satisfaction of the the release of the garnished funds.28Despite the UP s judgment.41ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ opposition,29 the RTC granted the motion to release the The UP sought the reconsideration of the order of May 3, garnished funds on March 16, 2004.30 On April 20, 2004, 2005.42ςrνll however, the RTC held in abeyance the enforcement of the chanrobles virtual law library writs of execution issued on October 4, 2002 and June 3, 2003 On May 16, 2005, DBP filed a motion to consign the check and all the ensuing notices of garnishment, citing Section 4, representing the judgment award and to dismiss the motion to Rule 52, Rules of Court, which provided that the pendency of a cite its officials in contempt of court.43ςrνll timely motion for reconsideration stayed the execution of the On May 23, 2005, the UP presented a motion to withhold the judgment.31ςrνll release of the payment of the judgment award.44ςrνll On July 8, 2005, the RTC resolved all the pending "4. Executive Order No. 109 (Directing all National matters,45 noting that the DBP had already delivered to the Government Agencies to Revert Certain Accounts Payable to sheriff Manager s Check No. 811941 for P16,370,191.74 the Cumulative Result of Operations of the National representing the garnished funds payable to the order of Stern Government and for Other Purposes) Section 9. Reversion of Builders and dela Cruz as its compliance with the RTC s order Accounts Payable, provides that, all 1995 and prior years dated December 21, 2004.46 However, the RTC directed in the documented accounts payable and all undocumented same order that Stern Builders and dela Cruz should not accounts regardless of the year they were incurred shall be encash the check or withdraw its amount pending the final reverted to the Cumulative Result of Operations of the resolution of the UP s Petition for Certiorari, to National Government (CROU). This shall apply to accounts wit:47ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ payable of all funds, except fiduciary funds, as long as the To enable the money represented in the check in question (No. purpose for which the funds were created have not been 00008119411) to earn interest during the pendency of the accomplished and accounts payable under foreign assisted defendant University of the Philippines application for a writ projects for the duration of the said project. In this regard, the of injunction with the Court of Appeals the same may now be Department of Budget and Management issued Joint-Circular deposited by the plaintiff at the garnishee Bank (Development No. 99-6 4.0 (4.3) Procedural Guidelines which provides that Bank of the Philippines), the disposition of the amount all accounts payable that reverted to the CROU may be represented therein being subject to the final outcome of the considered for payment upon determination thru case of the University of the Philippines et al., v. Hon. Agustin administrative process, of the existence, validity and legality of S. Dizon et al., (CA G.R. 88125) before the Court of Appeals. the claim. Thus, the allegation of the defendants that Let it be stated herein that the plaintiff is not authorized to considering no appropriation for the payment of any amount encash and withdraw the amount represented in the check in awarded to plaintiffs appellee the funds of defendant- question and enjoy the same in the fashion of an owner during appellants may not be seized pursuant to a writ of execution the pendency of the case between the parties before the Court issued by the regular court is misplaced. Surely when the of Appeals which may or may not be resolved in plaintiff s defendants and the plaintiff entered into the General favor. Construction of Agreement there is an amount already With the end in view of seeing to it that the check in question allocated by the latter for the said project which is no longer is deposited by the plaintiff at the Development Bank of the subject of future appropriation."49ςrνll Philippines (garnishee bank), Branch Sheriff Herlan Velasco is chanrobles virtual law library directed to accompany and/or escort the plaintiff in making After the CA denied their motion for reconsideration on the deposit of the check in December 23, 2005, the petitioners appealed by Petition for question.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ Review . SO ORDERED. Matters Arising During the Pendency of the Petition chanrobles virtual law library On January 30, 2006, Judge Dizon of the RTC (Branch 80) On September 16, 2005, the CA promulgated its assailed denied Stern Builders and dela Cruz s motion to withdraw the decision dismissing the UP s Petition for Certiorari, ruling that deposit, in consideration of the UP s intention to appeal to the the UP had been given ample opportunity to contest the CA,50 stating:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ motion to direct the DBP to deposit the check in the name of Since it appears that the defendants are intending to file a Stern Builders and dela Cruz; and that the garnished funds Petition for Review of the Court of Appeals resolution in CA- could be the proper subject of garnishment because they had G.R. No. 88125 within the reglementary period of fifteen (15) been already earmarked for the project, with the UP holding days from receipt of resolution, the Court agrees with the the funds only in a fiduciary defendants stand that the granting of plaintiffs subject motion capacity,48 viz:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ is premature. Petitioners next argue that the UP funds may not be seized for Let it be stated that what the Court meant by its Order dated execution or garnishment to satisfy the judgment award. Citing July 8, 2005 which states in part that the "disposition of the Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, University of the amount represented therein being subject to the final Philippines Board of Regents v. Hon. Ligot-Telan, petitioners outcome of the case of the University of the Philippines, et. al., contend that UP deposits at Land Bank and the Development v. Hon. Agustin S. Dizon et al., (CA G.R. No. 88125 before the Bank of the Philippines, being government funds, may not be Court of Appeals) is that the judgment or resolution of said released absent an appropriations bill from Congress. court has to be final and executory, for if the same will still be The argument is specious. UP entered into a contract with elevated to the Supreme Court, it will not attain finality yet private respondents for the expansion and renovation of the until the highest court has rendered its own final judgment or Arts and Sciences Building of its campus in Los Baños, Laguna. resolution.51ςrνll Decidedly, there was already an appropriations earmarked for chanrobles virtual law library the said project. The said funds are retained by UP, in a However, on January 22, 2007, the UP filed an Urgent fiduciary capacity, pending completion of the construction Application for A Temporary Restraining Order and/or A Writ project.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ of Preliminary Injunction,52 averring that on January 3, 2007, We agree with the trial Court [sic] observation on this Judge Maria Theresa dela Torre-Yadao (who had meanwhile score:ςrαlαω replaced Judge Dizon upon the latter s appointment to the CA) had issued another order allowing Stern Builders and dela Cruz the withdrawal of the garnished amount until after the to withdraw the deposit,53 to decision in the case would have become final and executory. wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ Although the Court issued a TRO on January 24, 2007 to enjoin It bears stressing that defendants liability for the payment of Judge Yadao and all persons acting pursuant to her authority the judgment obligation has become indubitable due to the from enforcing her order of January 3, 2007,55 it appears that final and executory nature of the Decision dated November 28, on January 16, 2007, or prior to the issuance of the TRO, she 2001. Insofar as the payment of the [sic] judgment obligation had already directed the DBP to forthwith release the is concerned, the Court believes that there is nothing more the garnished amount to Stern Builders and dela Cruz; 56 and that defendant can do to escape liability. It is observed that there DBP had forthwith complied with the order on January 17, is nothing more the defendant can do to escape liability. It is 2007 upon the sheriff s service of the order of Judge observed that defendant U.P. System had already exhausted Yadao.57ςrνll all its legal remedies to overturn, set aside or modify the These intervening developments impelled the UP to file in this decision (dated November 28, 2001( rendered against it. The Court a supplemental petition on January 26, 2007, 58 alleging way the Court sees it, defendant U.P. System s petition before that the RTC (Judge Yadao) gravely erred in ordering the the Supreme Court concerns only with the manner by which immediate release of the garnished amount despite the said judgment award should be satisfied. It has nothing to do pendency of the Petition for Review in this Court. with the legality or propriety thereof, although it prays for the The UP filed a second supplemental petition59 after the RTC deletion of [sic] reduction of the award of moral damages. (Judge Yadao) denied the UP s motion for the redeposit of the It must be emphasized that this Court s finding, i.e., that there withdrawn amount on April 10, 2007, 60 to was sufficient appropriation earmarked for the project, was wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ upheld by the Court of Appeals in its decision dated September This resolves defendant U.P. System s Urgent Motion to 16, 2005. Being a finding of fact, the Supreme Court will, Redeposit Judgment Award praying that plaintiffs be directed ordinarily, not disturb the same was said Court is not a trier of to redeposit the judgment award to DBP pursuant to the fact. Such being the case, defendants arguments that there Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court. was no sufficient appropriation for the payment of the Plaintiffs opposed the motion and countered that the judgment obligation must fail. Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court has While it is true that the former Presiding Judge of this Court in become moot and academic considering that the act sought to its Order dated January 30, 2006 had stated be restrained by it has already been performed. They also that:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ alleged that the redeposit of the judgment award was no Let it be stated that what the Court meant by its Order dated longer feasible as they have already spent the same. July 8, 2005 which states in part that the "disposition of the It bears stressing, if only to set the record straight, that this amount represented therein being subject to the final Court did not in its Order dated January 3, 2007 (the outcome of the case of the University of the Philippines, et. al., implementation of which was restrained by the Supreme Court v. Hon. Agustin S. Dizon et al., (CA G.R. No. 88125 before the in its Resolution dated January 24, 2002) direct that that Court of Appeals) is that the judgment or resolution of said garnished amount "be deposited with the garnishee bank court has to be final and executory, for if the same will still be (Development Bank of the Philippines)". In the first place, elevated to the Supreme Court, it will not attain finality yet there was no need to order DBP to make such deposit, as the until the highest court has rendered its own final judgment or garnished amount was already deposited in the account of resolution. plaintiffs with the DBP as early as May 13, 2005. What the chanrobles virtual law library Court granted in its Order dated January 3, 2007 was plaintiff it should be noted that neither the Court of Appeals nor the s motion to allow the release of said deposit. It must be Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the recalled that the Court found plaintiff s motion meritorious release or withdrawal of the garnished amount. In fact, in its and, at that time, there was no restraining order or preliminary present Petition for Review before the Supreme Court, U.P. injunction from either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme System has not prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Court which could have enjoined the release of plaintiffs injunction. Thus, the Court doubts whether such writ is deposit. The Court also took into account the following forthcoming. factors:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ The Court honestly believes that if defendants petition a) the Decision in this case had long been final and executory assailing the Order of this Court dated December 31, 2004 after it was rendered on November 28, 2001; granting the motion for the release of the garnished amount b) the propriety of the dismissal of U.P. System s appeal was was meritorious, the Court of Appeals would have issued a writ upheld by the Supreme Court; of injunction enjoining the same. Instead, said appellate court c) a writ of execution had been issued; not only refused to issue a wit of preliminary injunction prayed d) defendant U.P. System s deposit with DBP was garnished for by U.P. System but denied the petition, as well.54ςrνll pursuant to a lawful writ of execution issued by the Court; chanrobles virtual law library andcralawlibrary The UP contended that Judge Yadao thereby effectively e) the garnished amount had already been turned over to the reversed the January 30, 2006 order of Judge Dizon disallowing plaintiffs and deposited in their account with DBP. chanrobles virtual law library The garnished amount, as discussed in the Order dated IV January 16, 2007, was already owned by the plaintiffs, having THE RTC-BRANCH 80 COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN been delivered to them by the Deputy Sheriff of this Court ORDERING THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF THE JUDGMENT pursuant to par. (c), Section 9, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil AWARD IN ITS ORDER DATED 3 JANUARY 2007 ON THE Procedure. Moreover, the judgment obligation has already GROUND OF EQUITY AND JUDICIAL COURTESY. been fully satisfied as per Report of the Deputy Sheriff. V Anent the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme THE RTC-BRANCH 80 COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN Court, the same has become functus oficio, having been issued ORDERING THE IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF THE JUDGMENT after the garnished amount had been released to the plaintiffs. AWARD IN ITS ORDER DATED 16 JANUARY 2007 ON THE The judgment debt was released to the plaintiffs on January GROUND THAT PETITIONER UNIVERSITY STILL HAS A PENDING 17, 2007, while the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER DATED 3 Supreme Court was received by this Court on February 2, 2007. JANUARY 2007. At the time of the issuance of the Restraining Order, the act VI sought to be restrained had already been done, thereby THE RTC-BRANCH 80 COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN NOT rendering the said Order ineffectual. ORDERING THE REDEPOSIT OF THE GARNISHED AMOUNT TO After a careful and thorough study of the arguments advanced THE DBP IN VIOLATION OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE by the parties, the Court is of the considered opinion that there SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED 24 JANUARY 2007. is no legal basis to grant defendant U.P. System s motion to chanrobles virtual law library redeposit the judgment amount. Granting said motion is not The UP argues that the amount earmarked for the only contrary to law, but it will also render this Court s final construction project had been purposely set aside only for the executory judgment nugatory. Litigation must end and aborted project and did not include incidental matters like the terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an awards of actual damages, moral damages and attorney s fees. effective administration of justice that once a judgment has In support of its argument, the UP cited Article 12.2 of the become final the issue or cause involved therein should be laid General Construction Agreement, which stipulated that no to rest. This doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on deductions would be allowed for the payment of claims, fundamental considerations of public policy and sound damages, losses and expenses, including attorney s fees, in practice. In fact, nothing is more settled in law than that once case of any litigation arising out of the performance of the a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and work. The UP insists that the CA decision was inconsistent with unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even the rulings in Commissioner of Public Highways v. San if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be Diego61 and Department of Agriculture v. NLRC62 to the effect an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of that government funds and properties could not be seized whether the modification is attempted to be made by the under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy judgment court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. awards. WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding defendant U.P. Furthermore, the UP contends that the CA contravened System s Urgent Motion to Redeposit Judgment Award devoid Section 5, Article XIV of the Constitution by allowing the of merit, the same is hereby garnishment of UP funds, because the garnishment resulted in DENIED.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ a substantial reduction of the UP s limited budget allocated for SO ORDERED. the remuneration, job satisfaction and fulfillment of the best chanrobles virtual law library available teachers; that Judge Yadao should have exhibited Issues judicial courtesy towards the Court due to the pendency of the The UP now submits that: UP s Petition for Review; and that she should have also I desisted from declaring that the TRO issued by this Court had THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN become functus officio. DISMISSING THE PETITION, ALLOWING IN EFFECT THE Lastly, the UP states that the awards of actual damages GARNISHMENT OF UP FUNDS, WHEN IT RULED THAT FUNDS of P5,716,729.00 and moral damages of P10 million should be HAVE ALREADY BEEN EARMARKED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION reduced, if not entirely deleted, due to its being PROJECT; AND THUS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER unconscionable, inequitable and detrimental to public service. APPROPRIATIONS. In contrast, Stern Builders and dela Cruz aver that the Petition II for Review was fatally defective for its failure to mention the THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR IN other cases upon the same issues pending between the parties ALLOWING GARNISHMENT OF A STATE UNIVERSITY S FUNDS (i.e., CA-G.R. No. 77395 and G.R No. 163501); that the UP was IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 5(5) OF THE evidently resorting to forum shopping, and to delaying the CONSTITUTION. satisfaction of the final judgment by the filing of its Petition for III Review; that the ruling in Commissioner of Public Works v. San IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE UNIVERSITY INVOKES EQUITY AND Diego had no application because there was an appropriation THE REVIEW POWERS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT TO for the project; that the UP retained the funds allotted for the MODIFY, IF NOT TOTALLY DELETE THE AWARD OF P10 MILLION project only in a fiduciary capacity; that the contract price had AS MORAL DAMAGES TO RESPONDENTS. been meanwhile adjusted to P22,338,553.25, an amount already more than sufficient to cover the judgment award; obligation.75 A trust fund may be utilized only for the "specific that the UP s prayer to reduce or delete the award of damages purpose for which the trust was created or the funds had no factual basis, because they had been gravely wronged, received."76ςrνll had been deprived of their source of income, and had suffered The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in untold miseries, discomfort, humiliation and sleepless years; character. They include the income accruing from the use of that dela Cruz had even been constrained to sell his house, his real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the equipment and the implements of his trade, and together with attainment of its institutional objectives.77 Hence, the funds his family had been forced to live miserably because of the subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of wrongful actuations of the UP; and that the RTC correctly the RTC s writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse declared the Court s TRO to be already functus officio by judgment rendered against the UP in a suit to which it had reason of the withdrawal of the garnished amount from the impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by DBP. execution against the UP,78because suability of the State did The decisive issues to be considered and passed upon are, not necessarily mean its liability.79ςrνll therefore:ςrαlαω A marked distinction exists between suability of the State and (a) whether the funds of the UP were the proper subject of its liability. As the Court succinctly stated in Municipality of San garnishment in order to satisfy the judgment award; and (b) Fernando, La Union v. whether the UP s prayer for the deletion of the awards of Firme:80ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ actual damages of P5,716,729.00, moral damages A distinction should first be made between suability and of P10,000,000.00 and attorney s fees of P150,000.00 liability. "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be plus P1,500.00 per appearance could be granted despite the sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. finality of the judgment of the RTC. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily Rulingςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held The Petition for Review is meritorious. liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not chanrobles virtual law library conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to I. be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it UP s funds, being government funds, is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the are not subject to garnishment defendant is liable. The UP was founded on June 18, 1908 through Act 1870 to chanrobles virtual law library provide advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the Also, in Republic v. Villasor,81 where the issuance of an alias sciences, and arts, and to give professional and technical writ of execution directed against the funds of the Armed training to deserving students.63 Despite its establishment as a Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory body corporate,64 the UP remains to be a "chartered judgment was nullified, the Court institution"65 performing a legitimate government function. It said:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ is an institution of higher learning, not a corporation xxx The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to established for profit and declaring any dividends. 66 In be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it enacting Republic Act No. 9500 (The University of the may limit claimant s action "only up to the completion of Philippines Charter of 2008), Congress has declared the UP as proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the the national university67"dedicated to the search for truth and power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, knowledge as well as the development of future since government funds and properties may not be seized leaders."68ςrνll under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such Irrefragably, the UP is a government judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. instrumentality,69 performing the State s constitutional Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the mandate of promoting quality and accessible education.70 As a corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions government instrumentality, the UP administers special funds and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed sourced from the fees and income enumerated under Act No. to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds 1870 and Section 1 of Executive Order No. 714,71 and from the from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by yearly appropriations, to achieve the purposes laid down by law. Section 2 of Act 1870, as expanded in Republic Act No. chanrobles virtual law library 9500.72 All the funds going into the possession of the UP, The UP correctly submits here that the garnishment of its including any interest accruing from the deposit of such funds funds to satisfy the judgment awards of actual and moral in any banking institution, constitute a "special trust fund," the damages (including attorney s fees) was not validly made if disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UP s there was no special appropriation by Congress to cover the mission and purpose,73 and should always be subject to liability. It was, therefore, legally unwarranted for the CA to auditing by the COA.74ςrνll agree with the RTC s holding in the order issued on April 1, Presidential Decree No. 1445 defines a "trust fund" as a fund 2003 that no appropriation by Congress to allocate and set that officially comes in the possession of an agency of the aside the payment of the judgment awards was necessary government or of a public officer as trustee, agent or because "there (were) already an appropriations (sic) administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of some earmarked for the said project."82 The CA and the RTC thereby unjustifiably ignored the legal restriction imposed on the trust prudence and judiciousness in dealing with the execution and funds of the Government and its agencies and garnishment, and by authorizing the withdrawal of the instrumentalities to be used exclusively to fulfill the purposes garnished funds of the UP, the RTC acted beyond its for which the trusts were created or for which the funds were jurisdiction, and all its orders and issuances thereon were void received except upon express authorization by Congress or by and of no legal effect, specifically: (a) the order Judge Yadao the head of a government agency in control of the funds, and issued on January 3, 2007 allowing Stern Builders and dela Cruz subject to pertinent budgetary laws, rules and to withdraw the deposited garnished amount; (b) the order regulations.83ςrνll Judge Yadao issued on January 16, 2007 directing DBP to Indeed, an appropriation by Congress was required before the forthwith release the garnish amount to Stern Builders and judgment that rendered the UP liable for moral and actual dela Cruz; (c) the sheriff s report of January 17, 2007 damages (including attorney s fees) would be satisfied manifesting the full satisfaction of the writ of execution; and considering that such monetary liabilities were not covered by (d) the order of April 10, 2007 deying the UP s motion for the the "appropriations earmarked for the said project." The redeposit of the withdrawn amount. Hence, such orders and Constitution strictly mandated that "(n)o money shall be paid issuances should be struck down without exception. out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation Nothing extenuated Judge Yadao s successive violations of made by law."84ςrνll Presidential Decree No. 1445. She was aware of Presidential II Decree No. 1445, considering that the Court circulated to all COA must adjudicate private respondents claim judges its Administrative Circular No. 10-2000,86 issued on before execution should proceed October 25, 2000, enjoining them "to observe utmost caution, The execution of the monetary judgment against the UP was prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of within the primary jurisdiction of the COA. This was expressly execution to satisfy money judgments against government provided in Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, to agencies and local government units" precisely in order to wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ prevent the circumvention of Presidential Decree No. 1445, as Section 26. General jurisdiction. - The authority and powers of well as of the rules and procedures of the COA, to the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all matters wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the In order to prevent possible circumvention of the rules and keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the procedures of the Commission on Audit, judges are hereby preservation of vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten enjoined to observe utmost caution, prudence and years, the examination and inspection of the books, records, judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy and papers relating to those accounts; and the audit and money judgments against government agencies and local settlement of the accounts of all persons respecting funds or government units. property received or held by them in an accountable capacity, Judges should bear in mind that in Commissioner of Public as well as the examination, audit, and settlement of all debts Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 1970), this Court and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government explicitly stated:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities. The "The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be said jurisdiction extends to all government-owned or sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may controlled corporations, including their subsidiaries, and other limit claimant s action only up to the completion of self-governing boards, commissions, or agencies of the proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the Government, and as herein prescribed, including non power of the Court ends when the judgment is rendered, since governmental entities subsidized by the government, those government funds and properties may not be seized under funded by donations through the government, those required writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is to pay levies or government share, and those for which the based on obvious considerations of public policy. government has put up a counterpart fund or those partly Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the funded by the government. corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions chanrobles virtual law library and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed It was of no moment that a final and executory decision to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds already validated the claim against the UP. The settlement of from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by the monetary claim was still subject to the primary jurisdiction law. of the COA despite the final decision of the RTC having already chanrobles virtual law library validated the claim.85 As such, Stern Builders and dela Cruz as Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that upon determination the claimants had no alternative except to first seek the of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction approval of the COA of their monetary claim. thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and On its part, the RTC should have exercised utmost caution, procedures laid down in P.D. No. 1445, otherwise known as the prudence and judiciousness in dealing with the motions for Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Department of execution against the UP and the garnishment of the UP s Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, 701-02 1993 citing Republic funds. The RTC had no authority to direct the immediate v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 1973). All money claims against the withdrawal of any portion of the garnished funds from the Government must first be filed with the Commission on Audit depository banks of the UP. By eschewing utmost caution, which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the At stake in the UP s plea for equity was the return of the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect, sue the State amount of P16,370,191.74 illegally garnished from its trust thereby (P.D. 1445, Sections 49-50). funds. Obstructing the plea is the finality of the judgment However, notwithstanding the rule that government based on the supposed tardiness of UP s appeal, which the RTC properties are not subject to levy and execution unless declared on September 26, 2002. The CA upheld the otherwise provided for by statute (Republic v. Palacio, 23 SCRA declaration of finality on February 24, 2004, and the Court 899 1968; Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, itself denied the UP s Petition for Review on that issue on May supra) or municipal ordinance (Municipality of Makati v. Court 11, 2004 (G.R. No. 163501). The denial became final on of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206 1990), the Court has, in various November 12, 2004. instances, distinguished between government funds and It is true that a decision that has attained finality becomes properties for public use and those not held for public use. immutable and unalterable, and cannot be modified in any Thus, in Viuda de Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo (49 respect,87 even if the modification is meant to correct Phil 52 1926, the Court ruled that "where property of a erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether the municipal or other public corporation is sought to be subjected modification is made by the court that rendered it or by this to execution to satisfy judgments recovered against such Court as the highest court of the land.88 Public policy dictates corporation, the question as to whether such property is that once a judgment becomes final, executory and leviable or not is to be determined by the usage and purposes unappealable, the prevailing party should not be deprived of for which it is held." The following can be culled from Viuda de the fruits of victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo:ςrαlαω party. Unjustified delay in the enforcement of such judgment 1. Properties held for public uses and generally everything held sets at naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve for governmental purposes are not subject to levy and sale justiciable controversies with finality.89 Indeed, all litigations under execution against such corporation. The same rule must at some time end, even at the risk of occasional errors. applies to funds in the hands of a public officer and taxes due But the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not to a municipal corporation. been absolute, and has admitted several exceptions, among 2. Where a municipal corporation owns in its proprietary them: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) the so- capacity, as distinguished from its public or government called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any capacity, property not used or used for a public purpose but party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances for quasi-private purposes, it is the general rule that such transpire after the finality of the decision that render its property may be seized and sold under execution against the execution unjust and inequitable.90 Moreover, in Heirs of corporation. Maura So v. Obliosca,91 we stated that despite the absence of 3. Property held for public purposes is not subject to execution the preceding circumstances, the Court is not precluded from merely because it is temporarily used for private purposes. If brushing aside procedural norms if only to serve the higher the public use is wholly abandoned, such property becomes interests of justice and equity. Also, in Gumaru v. Quirino State subject to execution. College,92 the Court nullified the proceedings and the writ of This Administrative Circular shall take effect immediately and execution issued by the RTC for the reason that respondent the Court Administrator shall see to it that it is faithfully state college had not been represented in the litigation by the implemented. Office of the Solicitor General. chanrobles virtual law library We rule that the UP s plea for equity warrants the Court s Although Judge Yadao pointed out that neither the CA nor the exercise of the exceptional power to disregard the declaration Court had issued as of then any writ of preliminary injunction of finality of the judgment of the RTC for being in clear to enjoin the release or withdrawal of the garnished amount, violation of the UP s right to due process. she did not need any writ of injunction from a superior court Both the CA and the RTC found the filing on June 3, 2002 by to compel her obedience to the law. The Court is disturbed the UP of the notice of appeal to be tardy. They based their that an experienced judge like her should look at public laws finding on the fact that only six days remained of the UP s like Presidential Decree No. 1445 dismissively instead of loyally reglementary 15-day period within which to file the notice of following and unquestioningly implementing them. That she appeal because the UP had filed a motion for reconsideration did so turned her court into an oppressive bastion of mindless on January 16, 2002 vis-à -vis the RTC s decision the UP tyranny instead of having it as a true haven for the seekers of received on January 7, 2002; and that because the denial of justice like the UP. the motion for reconsideration had been served upon Atty. III Felimon D. Nolasco of the UPLB Legal Office on May 17, 2002, Period of appeal did not start without effective the UP had only until May 23, 2002 within which to file the service of decision upon counsel of record; notice of appeal. Fresh-period rule announced in The UP counters that the service of the denial of the motion Neypes v. Court of Appeals for reconsideration upon Atty. Nolasco was defective can be given retroactive application considering that its counsel of record was not Atty. Nolasco of The UP next pleads that the Court gives due course to its the UPLB Legal Office but the OLS in Diliman, Quezon City; and Petition for Review in the name of equity in order to reverse that the period of appeal should be reckoned from May 31, or modify the adverse judgment against it despite its finality. 2002, the date when the OLS received the order. The UP submits that the filing of the notice of appeal on June 3, 2002 deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within was well within the reglementary period to which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, appeal.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a We agree with the submission of the UP. new trial or motion for reconsideration. chanrobles virtual law library chanrobles virtual law library Firstly, the service of the denial of the motion for The retroactive application of the fresh-period rule, a reconsideration upon Atty. Nolasco of the UPLB Legal Office procedural law that aims "to regiment or make the appeal was invalid and ineffectual because he was admittedly not the period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order counsel of record of the UP. The rule is that it is on the counsel denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration and not the client that the service should be made. 93ςrνll (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution,"99 is That counsel was the OLS in Diliman, Quezon City, which was impervious to any serious challenge. This is because there are served with the denial only on May 31, 2002. As such, the no vested rights in rules of procedure.100 A law or regulation is running of the remaining period of six days resumed only on procedural when it prescribes rules and forms of procedure in June 1, 2002,94rendering the filing of the UP s notice of appeal order that courts may be able to administer justice. 101 It does on June 3, 2002 timely and well within the remaining days of not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or is the UP s period to appeal. not subject of the general rule prohibiting the retroactive Verily, the service of the denial of the motion for operation of statues, but is given retroactive effect in actions reconsideration could only be validly made upon the OLS in pending and undetermined at the time of its passage without Diliman, and no other. The fact that Atty. Nolasco was in the violating any right of a person who may feel that he is employ of the UP at the UPLB Legal Office did not render the adversely affected. service upon him effective. It is settled that where a party has We have further said that a procedural rule that is amended appeared by counsel, service must be made upon such for the benefit of litigants in furtherance of the administration counsel.95 Service on the party or the party s employee is not of justice shall be retroactively applied to likewise favor actions effective because such notice is not notice in law.96 This is clear then pending, as equity delights in equality.102 We may even enough from Section 2, second paragraph, of Rule 13, Rules of relax stringent procedural rules in order to serve substantial Court, which explicitly states that: "If any party has appeared justice and in the exercise of this Court s equity by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel jurisdiction.103 Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several to the special circumstances of a case because of the parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction. 104ςrνll served upon him by the opposite side." As such, the period to It is cogent to add in this regard that to deny the benefit of appeal resumed only on June 1, 2002, the date following the the fresh-period rule to the UP would amount to injustice and service on May 31, 2002 upon the OLS in Diliman of the copy absurdity injustice, because the judgment in question was of the decision of the RTC, not from the date when the UP was issued on November 28, 2001 as compared to the judgment in notified.97ςrνll Neypes that was rendered in 1998; absurdity, because parties Accordingly, the declaration of finality of the judgment of the receiving notices of judgment and final orders issued in the RTC, being devoid of factual and legal bases, is set aside. year 1998 would enjoy the benefit of the fresh-period rule but Secondly, even assuming that the service upon Atty. Nolasco the later rulings of the lower courts like that herein would was valid and effective, such that the remaining period for the not.105ςrνll UP to take a timely appeal would end by May 23, 2002, it Consequently, even if the reckoning started from May 17, would still not be correct to find that the judgment of the RTC 2002, when Atty. Nolasco received the denial, the UP s filing became final and immutable thereafter due to the notice of on June 3, 2002 of the notice of appeal was not tardy within appeal being filed too late on June 3, 2002. the context of the fresh-period rule. For the UP, the fresh In so declaring the judgment of the RTC as final against the UP, period of 15-days counted from service of the denial of the the CA and the RTC applied the rule contained in the second motion for reconsideration would end on June 1, 2002, which paragraph of Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the was a Saturday. Hence, the UP had until the next working day, effect that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or June 3, 2002, a Monday, within which to appeal, interrupted the running of the period for filing the appeal; and conformably with Section 1 of Rule 22, Rules of Court, which that the period resumed upon notice of the denial of the holds that: "If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls motion for reconsideration. For that reason, the CA and the on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where RTC might not be taken to task for strictly adhering to the rule the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working then prevailing. day." However, equity calls for the retroactive application in the UP IV s favor of the fresh-period rule that the Court first announced Awards of monetary damages, in mid-September of 2005 through its ruling in Neypes v. Court being devoid of factual and legal bases, of Appeals,98viz:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ did not attain finality and should be deleted To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution prescribes that afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court express findings of fact and of law should be made in the decision rendered by any court, to Here, the decision of the RTC justified the grant of actual and wit:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ moral damages, and attorney s fees in the following terse Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without manner, viz:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law xxx The Court is not unmindful that due to defendants on which it is based. unjustified refusal to pay their outstanding obligation to No Petition for Review or motion for reconsideration of a plaintiff, the same suffered losses and incurred expenses as he decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied was forced to re-mortgage his house and lot located in Quezon without stating the legal basis therefor. City to Metrobank (Exh. "CC") and BPI Bank just to pay its chanrobles virtual law library monetary obligations in the form of interest and penalties Implementing the constitutional provision in civil actions is incurred in the course of the construction of the subject Section 1 of Rule 36, Rules of Court, project.109ςrνll viz:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ chanrobles virtual law library Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment The statement that "due to defendants unjustified refusal to or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in pay their outstanding obligation to plaintiff, the same suffered writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating losses and incurred expenses as he was forced to re-mortgage clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, his house and lot located in Quezon City to Metrobank (Exh. signed by him, and filed with the clerk of the court. (1a) "CC") and BPI Bank just to pay its monetary obligations in the chanrobles virtual law library form of interest and penalties incurred in the course of the The Constitution and the Rules of Court apparently delineate construction of the subject project" was only a conclusion of two main essential parts of a judgment, namely: the body and fact and law that did not comply with the constitutional and the decretal portion. Although the latter is the controlling statutory prescription. The statement specified no detailed part,106 the importance of the former is not to be lightly expenses or losses constituting the P5,716,729.00 actual regarded because it is there where the court clearly and damages sustained by Stern Builders in relation to the distinctly states its findings of fact and of law on which the construction project or to other pecuniary hardships. The decision is based. To state it differently, one without the other omission of such expenses or losses directly indicated that is ineffectual and useless. The omission of either inevitably Stern Builders did not prove them at all, which then results in a judgment that violates the letter and the spirit of contravened Article 2199, Civil Code, the statutory basis for the Constitution and the Rules of Court. the award of actual damages, which entitled a person to an The term findings of fact that must be found in the body of the adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered decision refers to statements of fact, not to conclusions of by him as he has duly proved. As such, the actual damages law.107 Unlike in pleadings where ultimate facts alone need to allowed by the RTC, being bereft of factual support, were be stated, the Constitution and the Rules of Court require not speculative and whimsical. Without the clear and distinct only that a decision should state the ultimate facts but also findings of fact and law, the award amounted only to an ipse that it should specify the supporting evidentiary facts, for they dixit on the part of the RTC,110 and did not attain finality. are what are called the findings of fact. There was also no clear and distinct statement of the factual The importance of the findings of fact and of law cannot be and legal support for the award of moral damages in the overstated. The reason and purpose of the Constitution and substantial amount of P10,000,000.00. The award was thus the Rules of Court in that regard are obviously to inform the also speculative and whimsical. Like the actual damages, the parties why they win or lose, and what their rights and moral damages constituted another judicial ipse dixit, the obligations are. Only thereby is the demand of due process inevitable consequence of which was to render the award of met as to the parties. As Justice Isagani A. Cruz explained in moral damages incapable of attaining finality. In addition, the Nicos Industrial Corporation v. Court of grant of moral damages in that manner contravened the law Appeals:108ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ that permitted the recovery of moral damages as the means to It is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation assuage "physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the shock, social humiliation, and similar injury."111The court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered contravention of the law was manifest considering that Stern in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any Builders, as an artificial person, was incapable of experiencing justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is pain and moral sufferings.112 Assuming that in granting the entitled to know why he lost, so he may appeal to a higher substantial amount of P10,000,000.00 as moral damages, the court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should RTC might have had in mind that dela Cruz had himself be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly suffered mental anguish and anxiety. If that was the case, then state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the the RTC obviously disregarded his separate and distinct parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially personality from that of Stern Builders.113 Moreover, his moral prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the and emotional sufferings as the President of Stern Builders possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. were not the sufferings of Stern Builders. Lastly, the RTC chanrobles virtual law library violated the basic principle that moral damages were not intended to enrich the plaintiff at the expense of the defendant, but to restore the plaintiff to his status quo ante as appearance, in favor of Stern Builders Corporation and much as possible. Taken together, therefore, all these Servillano dela Cruz. considerations exposed the substantial amount The Court ORDERS Stem Builders Corporation and Servillano of P10,000,000.00 allowed as moral damages not only to be dela Cruz to redeposit the amount of P16,370,191.74 within 10 factually baseless and legally indefensible, but also to be days from receipt of this unconscionable, inequitable and unreasonable. decision.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ Like the actual and moral damages, the P150,000.00, Costs of suit to be paid by the private respondents. plus P1,500.00 per appearance, granted as attorney s fees SO ORDERED. were factually unwarranted and devoid of legal basis. The Endnotes: general rule is that a successful litigant cannot recover attorney s fees as part of the damages to be assessed against the losing party because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.114 Prior to the effectivity of the present Civil Code, indeed, such fees could be recovered only when there was a stipulation to that effect. It was only under the present Civil Code that the right to collect attorney s fees in the cases mentioned in Article 2208115 of the Civil Code came to be recognized.116 Nonetheless, with attorney s fees being allowed in the concept of actual damages,117 their amounts must be factually and legally justified in the body of the decision and not stated for the first time in the decretal portion.118 Stating the amounts only in the dispositive portion of the judgment is not enough;119 a rendition of the factual and legal justifications for them must also be laid out in the body of the decision.120ςrνll That the attorney s fees granted to the private respondents did not satisfy the foregoing requirement suffices for the Court to undo them.121 The grant was ineffectual for being contrary to law and public policy, it being clear that the express findings of fact and law were intended to bring the case within the exception and thereby justify the award of the attorney s fees. Devoid of such express findings, the award was a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture.122ςrνll Nonetheless, the absence of findings of fact and of any statement of the law and jurisprudence on which the awards of actual and moral damages, as well as of attorney s fees, were based was a fatal flaw that invalidated the decision of the RTC only as to such awards. As the Court declared in Velarde v. Social Justice Society,123 the failure to comply with the constitutional requirement for a clear and distinct statement of the supporting facts and law "is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" and that "(d)ecisions or orders issued in careless disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down as void."124 The other item granted by the RTC (i.e., P503,462.74) shall stand, subject to the action of the COA as stated herein. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Review on Certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDEthe decision of the Court of Appeals under review; ANNULS the orders for the garnishment of the funds of the University of the Philippines and for the release of the garnished amount to Stern Builders Corporation and Servillano dela Cruz; and DELETES from the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated November 28, 2001 for being void only the awards of actual damages of P5,716,729.00, moral damages of P10,000,000.00, and attorney's fees of P150,000.00, plus P1,500.00 per